TO THE STUDENTS OF THE CAPRI SCHOOL. - AUGUST 30, 1909

TO THE STUDENTS OF THE CAPRI SCHOOL. AUGUST 30, 1909   197

to share responsibility for a school whose direction has already been predetermined by the composition of its lecturers, if that direction is hostile.

# First page of V. I. Lenin's letter
to the students of the Capri School. - August 30, 1909

TO THE STUDENTS OF THE CAPRI SCHOOL. AUGUST 30, 1909   197

to share responsibility for a school whose direction has already been predetermined by the composition of its lecturers, if that direction is hostile.

Source: PSS vol. 47

Now look at the composition of lecturers, which has predetermined the character and direction of the school. You, comrades, signed your letter to me, but your letter to the Central Committee (a copy of this letter reached me together with the school's program) was sent in the name of students and lecturers of the school but does not contain the signatures of the lecturers. Therefore, I cannot know the composition of the lecturers with complete precision. But what I do know is quite sufficient for me to judge the composition of the lecturers.

We received reports from local organizations of the Central Industrial Region in Russia that comrade Stanislav was the most energetic, if not the only, agitator for the Capri school, and he has already been chosen as a lecturer by several Social-Democratic circles that heard his lecture. This comrade Stanislav is the most resolute recallist and "critic" of Marxism in philosophy. It suffices to recall: (1) how he tore apart Kautsky in his well-known philosophical book; (2) how he distinguished himself at the party conference of December 1908 in forming a separate faction of recallists together with the St. Petersburg recallist Vs.; (3) how an article edited by him in the recallist *Worker's Banner*, no. 5, was itself recognized by *Worker's Banner* as permeated with anarchist views.

Now look at those lecturers whom you see before you on Capri.

There are no Bolsheviks among them. Instead, all supporters of the new faction (the faction of defenders of recallism and god-building) are represented almost in full. I would hardly be far off if I said that you see among the Capri lecturers comrades Maximov, Lunacharsky, Lyadov, and Alexinsky. This is precisely the group of comrades who, since spring 1908, formed an opposition to *Proletarian*, conducted agitation against it in Russia and abroad, distinguished themselves as a separate faction (or supported it) at the party conference in December 1908, and finally completely separated into a distinct faction.

To deny that this entire group of comrades conducts agitation against *Proletarian*, while supporting and defending the recallists, would be to mock facts known to everyone in the party. To deny that the island of Capri has already become known even in general Russian literature as a literary center of god-building would be to scoff at the facts. All of the Russian press long ago pointed out that Lunacharsky from the island of Capri has conducted propaganda for god-building. Bazarov helped him in Russia. Bogdanov defended similar philosophical views in a dozen Russian legal books and articles, in a dozen lectures abroad. I was on the island of Capri in April 1908 and declared to all three of these comrades my absolute disagreement with them on philosophy (moreover, I proposed to them then that we employ our common resources and forces on a Bolshevik history of the revolution, in opposition to the Menshevik-liquidationist history of the revolution, but the Capri comrades rejected my proposal, preferring to engage not in general Bolshevik work but in the propaganda of their particular philosophical views). From among your group of Capri lecturers, the majority are literati, and not one of these literati has ever once attacked in print the god-building propaganda of Lunacharsky and Bazarov!

If, despite all this, you write to me, comrades, that considering the school connected with god-building and recallism is a "misunderstanding," and moreover an "utter" one on my part, because "such goals were not only never set in this school, there could be no question of them" — then I can only express amazement at your extreme naiveté. I repeat: the actual character and direction of the school are determined not by the good intentions of local organizations, not by the decisions of the "Soviet" of students, not by "programs," etc., but by the composition of lecturers. And if the composition of lecturers is wholly and has been wholly determined by the circle of members of the new faction, then to deny the factional character of the school is simply absurd.

To conclude the question of the composition of lecturers, I shall provide you with one more fact, told to me by comrade Innokenty, which shows the extent to which—